HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Chowringhee Prakashan (P.) Ltd.
Versus
Begwani Trade & Industries (P.) Ltd.
A.P.O. NOS. 74, 75 & 76 OF 2012
C.P. NOS. 78, 105 & 135 OF 2010
DECEMBER 20, 2012
JUDGMENT
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.
The above three appeals would relate to a claim made by the three respondents being in the common management, as against the company above named. The company was engaged in publishing news daily by the name of “Statesman” which had his age old repute and glory that was decaying resulting in acute financial stringency. Newsprint suppliers were reluctant to continue supply as their outstanding mounted up. The company approached the respondents for financial accommodation. The respondents were also in the business of trading of newsprint. They agreed to supply newsprint by procuring from the market. Instead of direct supply from the paper mills the supply was routed through the respondents inter alia on the following terms :-
(i) The respondents would procure newsprint from the market and in turn would supply to the company that would be on forty five days credit.
(ii) The respondents would charge one per cent service charges and/or commission over and above the price of the newsprint.
(iii)The respondents would have reimbursement of the actual bank interest that the respondents might have to pay to their banker in case the payments got delayed.
2. Initially supply continued. However, the company could not clear off the dues within the time stipulated. Amount staggered resulting in huge outstanding to the tune of crores. The company by its letter dated June 11, 2009 acknowledged a sum of Rs. 3,18,34,478/- due as on April 30, 2009 in case of C.P. No.78 of 2010 arising out of APO No.76 of 2012. Similar acknowledgements were made in other two cases. There had been subsequent acknowledgements. The respondents also gave rebate in case of APO No.76 of 2012 to the extent of Rs. 34.5 lacs provided the company would pay the outstanding at an early date. However, such thing did not materialize resulting in filing of the three winding up petitions filed by the same group. The claim made in the winding up petitions were as follows :-
